Up before the beak again

It is most of a year since my last pointless pointless arbcomm case so it was about time for another, and here it is (that’s the current state, which may not work in a year or a day’s time. Permalink to current state).

I don’t think it will be very exciting, but I’ve been known to be wrong about these things before.

The troubled career of the Advisory Council on Project Development might be more interesting though, in conjunction with its inevitable RFC. This too.

[Update: it has got a bit more exciting: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley]] is now open -W]

More foam

A little while ago I was ratty at Romm for being ratty at Peilke. All very exciting, but I was challenged to Please identify a single scientifically inaccurate statement in the paragraph that Pielke excerpted from the report. This isn’t difficult; Pielke has already done it. Romm also asked me to please identify the scientifically inaccurate statements in my blog post that you trashed. This turns out to be harder: though all the ranting, I can’t actualy see any strictly scientific statements in there at all. Can anyone else?